A Grand Confusion of Language and of Understanding

Successful statisticsHere’s a summary of Peter Thiel’s take, as expressed recently in the Wall Street Journal, on the contrast between competition and monopoly:

Competition is not as marvelous, and monopoly is not as monstrous, as pop culture and economic theory proclaim. Entrepreneurial creativity brings incessant change, so competitive firms are lame nonentities while firms that win a monopoly position through innovation are magnificent benefactors to their owners and the general public alike.

Thiel is on the right track.

Though his essay does not mention Joseph Schumpeter’s evocative notion of “creative destruction,” it is quite consonant with Schumpeter’s famous (and, in my opinion, still unmatched) description of capitalist competition in his 1942 work Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. There Schumpeter ridiculed and rejected economic-textbook definitions of competition, having recognized what Thiel recognizes: that what’s called “competition” in formal economic theory bears almost no resemblance to the entrepreneurial rivalries and struggles for market share and higher profits that occur daily in real-world capitalist economies.

As Schumpeter said:

The introduction of new methods of production and new commodities is hardly conceivable with perfect—and perfectly prompt—competition from the start. And this means that the bulk of what we call economic progress is incompatible with it.

Exactly right. The entrepreneurial quest for market niches and production advantages that are not easily bested or even replicable by others is the essence of capitalist competition. It is that kind of competition, not the kind featured in textbooks, that creates today’s high, and still-rising, living standards for the masses.

Most economists (with the notable exception of the Austrians) over the past hundred years have done a great disservice by giving the name “perfect competition” to an imaginary state of affairs in which only one avenue exists for entrepreneurs and businesses to compete for consumers’ patronage. In a perfectly competitive world, all product varieties and qualities are given (that is, are unchanging and unchangeable); each of the many producers and consumers knows everything about the qualities of products; and each is fully aware of all bids and offers made throughout the economy.

Under these conditions, the only possible way a firm can increase its sales is to cut its prices. Period. It is assumed that competition for consumers’ patronage takes no other form.

Parenthetically, if we strictly follow the theory of perfect competition, we see that it rules out even price-cutting. Each firm is such a small part of the market that each firm is a price taker. Because each firm can always sell as much output as it wants at the prevailing market price, no firm ever has an incentive to cut prices—a confusion that tends to be overlooked. It is no small problem with the theory that it assumes away any and all actual price-setting by sellers and buyers. Thus it has no explanation for how prices are set and are changed, assigning this task to mysterious market “forces” that act completely independently of human agency.

Consumers’ well-being, under this strangely named theory, changes only with changes in prices and quantities sold: the lower the price of any good or service, the greater are the quantities that consumers purchase and the better off consumers become. And so long as price is higher than the cost of producing an additional unit of output, firms can afford to cut prices and sell higher quantities to consumers. With all firms in the industry assumed to have similar cost schedules, competition will (in some mysterious way, see above) push the market price down until it equals marginal cost. Consumer welfare will then be maximized. Bliss.

Of course, economists recognize that the theory of perfect competition is unrealistic. What theory isn’t? But their attempt to compensate, and make their textbook account of competition more lifelike, only sows more confusion. To inject realism into one theory, economists recur to yet another: that of “monopolistic competition.” It is here that innovation finally appears—but only modestly, in the form of “product differentiation.”

To try to win the ability to raise price without losing all sales, firms compete in part by offering products that differ slightly from those of their industry rivals. Think of a new’n’ improved laundry detergent with a fresh, lemony scent, so superior to its soapy-smelling competitors. Because for the moment no one else offers this differentiated product, its producer can profitably raise the price charged for this lemony detergent.

A sensible non-economist hearing this account would likely conclude that economists regard the product differentiator as an unambiguous benefactor to consumers. True, the product-differentiating firm didn’t make a huge innovation, but it did create an improved product that enough consumers prefer, even at a higher price, to the older products to enable the differentiator to reap higher profits.

Not so fast, warn the economists. The differentiated product gives its producer some “monopoly power”—meaning, in econ-speak, the ability to raise the product’s price without suffering a loss of all sales. And the producer uses this monopoly power to charge prices higher than the marginal cost of producing the product. So consumer well-being is no longer as high as it could be. This “monopolistically competitive” market serves consumers less well than would a perfectly competitive market for lemon-scented detergents.

The sensible non-economist can be forgiven at this point for being confused. “Why is it,” she asks, “that the creative and risky act of improving a product is deemed by economists to be an act of monopolization? It is, after all, obviously “competitive” according to the everyday use of the term. How can a firm that alters its product in ways that prompt many consumers voluntarily to purchase it at a price higher than the price charged for older, unaltered products be accused of polluting the pure waters of competition with the poison of monopoly?”

How, indeed? But there you have it. That’s the way too many economists (again, excepting the Austrians) train themselves to think about competition and monopoly.

If words carry no baggage—if they mean only what their users mean them to mean— there isn’t really a problem in calling “competitive” the conditions assumed by economists in their theory of “perfect competition.” Nor would there be any harm in calling “monopoly” any and all deviations, in theory or reality, from those “perfectly competitive” conditions.

But in fact the words “competition” and “monopoly” have meanings in everyday language. And when economists use them they evoke attitudes, suppositions, and responses not only in the general public and in policymakers, but also in the very economists using these words. Those attitudes, suppositions, and responses are invariably hostile to situations described as “monopolistic” and invariably favorable to situations described as “competitive.”

The fact that almost no actual competition takes place in perfectly competitive markets doesn’t stop people, most of whom are unfamiliar with the theory, from supposing that what economists (the experts!) call “perfect competition” must be a condition of the most intense and ideal kind of competition—that any deviation from this condition must mean diminished consumer well-being and a weaker economy. Likewise, the existence of anything labeled “monopoly power” must mean that the general public is being harmed.

But such suppositions are incorrect. As Thiel (like Schumpeter long ago, and like Deirdre McCloskey today[1]) explains, innovation is key to modern economic growth, and innovation is made possible only by the lure of large “above-normal” profits—profits that economists misleadingly call “monopoly profits.”

Genuine monopoly—that is, a market condition genuinely worthy of that ominous name—involves government erecting barriers to entry. Only governmentally created and enforced barriers can stop innovative entrepreneurs from vying with each other to tempt consumers with lower prices and better, or even completely different, products.

Confusion has reigned for too long, with the slapping of the tag “monopoly” on firms that win the ability to earn higher-than-normal profits through their success at offering unusually attractive bargains to consumers. Unless and until the term “monopoly” is reserved for those situations in which entrepreneurial efforts to please consumers are obstructed by legal barriers, we will have to deal with befuddling descriptions (such as in Peter Thiel’s essay) of consumer-friendly innovators as “monopolists.” Such “monopolists” in fact are—whether they describe themselves properly or not—vigorous and beneficial competitors.

 

[1] Deirdre N. McCloskey, Bourgeois Dignity (University of Chicago Press, 2010).

Donald Boudreaux

Professor Donald J. Boudreaux is a Professor of Economics at George Mason University. He is the author of Globalization (Greenwood Press, 2008) and has a blog with Russ Roberts entitled Cafe Hayek.

About the Author

Recent Popular Posts

Related Posts

Comments

  1. john trainor says

    For a while there Henry Ford had a monopoly, so did Standard Oil, for a while. Size does not preclude competition, the computer age has had it’s giants but the doors to profit and opportunity were always open. As clearly stated in the article the government is and has been the monopolist, both in it’s own actions and in determining who are the favorites. Always true, now more so with what we have in the WH.

  2. nobody.really says

    [I]innovation is key to modern economic growth, and innovation is made possible only by the lure of large “above-normal” profits….

    Boudreaux makes a fair argument for the idea that monopolies arise (at least temporarily) as part of the normal innovation process. But I see no argument for the proposition that “above-normal” profits are required for innovation. To be sure, some types of innovation are so risky/expensive (e.g., pharmaceuticals) that the rationale expectation model applies. In contrast, I suspect that much innovation in the arts is generated by people who are creative by nature and who can scarcely stop themselves from innovating. I’d like to get a head-count of the people who think that the inventors of the blues expected to get rich.

    Or consider sports. There have been a lot of innovative strategies developed for football. Yet the pay-off is meager: If the strategy works, you know your opponents are scrutinizing you weekly and will copy any novel play promptly. Moreover, it is not clear that the most highly-paid coaches are the most innovative. Do we see more innovations arising from the lucrative NFL, or from colleges? (Moneyball tells the story of a huge baseball innovation driven not by wealth, but by relative poverty – the “necessity is the mother of invention” thing.)

    Finally, for what it’s worth, the Atlantic has a story about how measures of “disruptive innovation” are down – and have been for decades:

    Thanks to data that the Census Bureau began releasing a decade ago, economists can now track what they call “business dynamism” in ways they couldn’t before. As researchers have dug into these numbers, they’ve found that most metrics of dynamism and upheaval in American business have actually been declining for decades, with the downturn steepening after 2000. Fewer new businesses are being launched in the United States, the average age of businesses is increasing, job creation and job destruction are on the wane, industries are being consolidated, and fast-growth businesses are rarer.

    • gabe says

      Nobody:

      Fair enough, but:

      “Finally, for what it’s worth, the Atlantic has a story about how measures of “disruptive innovation” are down – and have been for decades:

      “Thanks to data that the Census Bureau began releasing a decade ago, economists can now track what they call “business dynamism” in ways they couldn’t before. As researchers have dug into these numbers, they’ve found
      that most metrics of dynamism and upheaval in American business have actually been declining for decades, with the downturn steepening after 2000. Fewer new businesses are being launched in the United States, the average age of businesses is increasing, job creation and job destruction are on the wane, industries are being consolidated, and fast-growth businesses are rarer.””

      But doesn’t it this support the contention that governmental intervention via barriers to entry are responsible for this decline? Goodness, we spend zillions on educating STEM folks (and, no, there is no shortage of American STEM-ers) and yet we see this decline in innovative enterprise activity. Something is afoot, yes?

      Also:
      ” But I see no argument for the proposition that “above-normal” profits are required for innovation.”
      Did you take the writer to mean that above normal profits were “required”? My sense was that such profits may generally or naturally follow for a short period. These bigger profits eventually go by the wayside but they di help that firm to continue to innovate and serve as a magnet for other firms to try similar schemes. Of course, as the Atlantic piece shows, it ain’t working the way it used to. so again, something else is afoot!

      • nobody.really says

        But doesn’t it this support the contention that governmental intervention via barriers to entry are responsible for this decline? Goodness, we spend zillions on educating STEM folks….

        ???

        1. *I* don’t have zillions. *You* don’t have zillions. So who is this “we” that spends zillions on educating STEM folk? You wouldn’t be speaking of that innovation-styling government, would you?

        2. The Atlantic reports that stats on innovation have been declining for decades. Which barriers to entry are higher now than in the past — indeed, which barriers have grown so high as to offset the benefits to innovation created over the past decades by the internet (yet another tyrannical government innovation), etc?

        • gabe says

          Nobody:

          surely, you have not missed all of the increased regulatory burdens that befall any business nor any of the increased regulatory fees one is required to endure in order to get abusiness off the ground; nor the litigations costs associated with doing any kind of business.
          You mention in your original comments that perhaps it is OK for Big Pharma to reap outsize profits )I agree BTW due to risks / potential costs). Interesting as today’s news brings reports of pending lawsuits against a smaller drug company that has developed a “cure” for Hepatitis C. Yes, indeed, these pharmaceutical miscreants are asking for “too much” money and the innovation “encouraging” guvmnt will most likely come after them.

          I guess that is who / what I was referring to, I guess – how about you?

          Oh and as for the “zillions” and the guvmnt, while govt loan programs do help in providing opportunity for many, could it also be that these programs serve as a convenient way of keeping the Dem’s biggest supporters employed – liberal academics – just saying!!!!

  3. R Richard Schweitzer says

    “There is always some element of monopoly in all transactions – even if it is only the smile on the face of the girl in the chocolate shoppe.” Schumpter, as quoted by Davis McCord Wright

  4. R Richard Schweitzer says

    Let’s not overlook or disregard those forms of “Monopoly” which limit choice; and the corollary that what limits choice impacts “liberty.”

    That bears consideration even when the choices may be less “efficient” in uses of resources, less effective for the purpose or only “emotionally” satisfying.

    For the conditions of liberty, any monopoly that constrains choice (not that directs or influences choice) must be a transient, non-imposed, condition subject to disruption or destruction where freedom of choice (and the reasons for it) will propagate competition.

Trackbacks

  1. […] Here’s an essay that I was asked to write for the blog at Library of Liberty & Law.  Specifically, this essay – motivated by Peter Thiel’s recent piece in the Wall Street Journal – explains that what we economists still formally call “competition” is not a very competitive situation, and what we call “monopoly” often is a situation of intense competition.  (Small correction: what looks near the beginning of my essay like a quotation from Thiel is not; it’s simply my summary of Thiel’s thesis.) […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>